4 ms·

Can someone educate me on this? I believed that cell phones emit non-ionizing radiation. I also believed that non-ionizing radiation doesn't cause chemical reac

Can someone educate me on this? I believed that cell phones emit non-ionizing radiation. I also believed that non-ionizing radiation doesn't cause chemical reactions. I also believed that generally chemical reactions would be required to have a negative effect on human biology. I do understand there can be heating effects from non-ionizing radiation but the power levels seem really, really low, <2 watts. That seems like an amount of heat that can be easily dissipated. This article says that I'm missing something. I'm wondering what that is.

coldpie 5y ago
Here is a decent overview with links to further reading: https://sciencebasedmedicine.org/5g-is-coming/ https://sciencebasedmedicine.org/5g-is-coming/ The author is the host of a science-based skepticism podcast who I have come to trust to handle science and medicine topics well.
istumbler 5y ago
You're thinking like a physicist, not a professor trying to get attention for their wackadoodle theory
wnissen 5y ago
You're not missing anything. We already did a huge natural experiment with the analog phones of the 1980s. They put out a full watt of power, and headsets weren't so common so it was going straight into peoples brains. Then we switched to digital, which use 88% less power, at peak. There was no mass drop in brain cancer.
ABCLAW 5y ago
>I also believed that non-ionizing radiation doesn't cause chemical reactions. I also believed that generally chemical reactions would be required to have a negative effect on human biology. These aren't true as a rule, but generally good as guidelines. Ionizing radiation gives way to widespread, molecule agnostic damage in molecular systems; it's powerful enough to pop pieces of molecules off. Ionizing energy is the equivalent of firing a light cannon to blow chunks off molecules; the damage is immediate, consistent, widespread and dangerous. Non-ionizing radiation, by contrast, is absorbed selectively. A given wavelength will only be absorbed if it corresponds with the specific quantum of an excitation level of the target system. This means uptake of energy will be molecule specific; chromophores are examples of molecules specifically designed to take advantage of this; it's how we see. Microwaves, for instance, are non-ionizing radiation. We know a surplus of microwave radiation can cook people through. It does this because microwaves are the right wavelength to vibrate the bonds in water. UV radiation is also considered non-ionizing, but DNA will absorb it, and the photochemical result of that absorption is the formation of Pyrimidine dimers (TT dimers). This direct damage to our genetic codes is the primary cause of skin cancer and is so dangerous that we have evolved an extensive set of molecular machines to excise and repair this specific problem. So no, non-ionizing radiation is not uniformly safe and biologically inert. This isn't to say 5G is unsafe - remember things are wavelength and dose specific; it's just to say the reasoning "non ionizing never causes biological harm" is very wrong.
dekhn 5y ago
The best argument I can think of is "cells have sensors for EMF that lead to genetic expression changes, the results of which could lead to cancer" (there is plenty of ambiguous literature on how cellular response can increase the risk of cancer). The argument "since cell phones don't emit non-ionizing radiation, they can't cause cancer" is simply incorrect.
CrispyCas13 5y ago
There is an issue with definitions in this thread. Mutagens which cause mutations in nucleotides are always Carcinogens. But not all carcinogens are mutagens. Carcinogens may instead promote prooncogenic pathways within the cell. The mechanism proposed of RF inducing apoptosis seems a bit far fetched to me imo.

coldpie 5y ago

Here is a decent overview with links to further reading: https://sciencebasedmedicine.org/5g-is-coming/ https://sciencebasedmedicine.org/5g-is-coming/ The author is the host of a science-based skepticism podcast who I have come to trust to handle science and medicine topics well.

istumbler 5y ago

You're thinking like a physicist, not a professor trying to get attention for their wackadoodle theory

wnissen 5y ago

You're not missing anything. We already did a huge natural experiment with the analog phones of the 1980s. They put out a full watt of power, and headsets weren't so common so it was going straight into peoples brains. Then we switched to digital, which use 88% less power, at peak. There was no mass drop in brain cancer.

ABCLAW 5y ago

>I also believed that non-ionizing radiation doesn't cause chemical reactions. I also believed that generally chemical reactions would be required to have a negative effect on human biology. These aren't true as a rule, but generally good as guidelines. Ionizing radiation gives way to widespread, molecule agnostic damage in molecular systems; it's powerful enough to pop pieces of molecules off. Ionizing energy is the equivalent of firing a light cannon to blow chunks off molecules; the damage is immediate, consistent, widespread and dangerous. Non-ionizing radiation, by contrast, is absorbed selectively. A given wavelength will only be absorbed if it corresponds with the specific quantum of an excitation level of the target system. This means uptake of energy will be molecule specific; chromophores are examples of molecules specifically designed to take advantage of this; it's how we see. Microwaves, for instance, are non-ionizing radiation. We know a surplus of microwave radiation can cook people through. It does this because microwaves are the right wavelength to vibrate the bonds in water. UV radiation is also considered non-ionizing, but DNA will absorb it, and the photochemical result of that absorption is the formation of Pyrimidine dimers (TT dimers). This direct damage to our genetic codes is the primary cause of skin cancer and is so dangerous that we have evolved an extensive set of molecular machines to excise and repair this specific problem. So no, non-ionizing radiation is not uniformly safe and biologically inert. This isn't to say 5G is unsafe - remember things are wavelength and dose specific; it's just to say the reasoning "non ionizing never causes biological harm" is very wrong.

dekhn 5y ago

The best argument I can think of is "cells have sensors for EMF that lead to genetic expression changes, the results of which could lead to cancer" (there is plenty of ambiguous literature on how cellular response can increase the risk of cancer). The argument "since cell phones don't emit non-ionizing radiation, they can't cause cancer" is simply incorrect.

CrispyCas13 5y ago

There is an issue with definitions in this thread. Mutagens which cause mutations in nucleotides are always Carcinogens. But not all carcinogens are mutagens. Carcinogens may instead promote prooncogenic pathways within the cell. The mechanism proposed of RF inducing apoptosis seems a bit far fetched to me imo.